Pascal's Wager

[jmjconder]

Valid or not?

 

[dshix]

What do you mean by asking if it is “valid?” It’s a thought-provoking idea, not a proof of morality or the existence of God.

 

[empther]

I think the idea has been sufficiently dismissed on this forum recently.

1. It proves nothing.
2. You have to question the sincerity and commitment of somebody just playing the odds.
3. If God exists you would think he’d find a way to help people find a strong faith without placing bets.

 

[ServantPD]

What do you mean by asking if it is “valid?” It’s a thought-provoking idea, not a proof of morality or the existence of God.

Exact thoughts on my behalf.

It could be considered a way of reassuring someone that they don’t have much to lose in believing in God (parting from the principal that they have their faiths based on reason and did conclude His existence), but it wouldn’t be on my stock of arguments to prove God’s existence. Besides, placing bets on a belief system isn’t exactly what we call faithful…

 

[Iron_Donkey]

I think the idea has been sufficiently dismissed on this forum recently.

1. It proves nothing.
2. You have to question the sincerity and commitment of somebody just playing the odds.
3. If God exists you would think he’d find a way to help people find a strong faith without placing bets.

1. It proves that betting on God not existing isn’t a good plan.
2. Pascal’s wager also works if you replace the self interest motivation with a desire to do what is best or similar, self interest is just the lowest common denominator sort of thing (so that even for the person who only cares about himself, disbelieving in God is not a good plan). In such a case it then becomes “if anything is good and true, it must be this. Therefore, I should follow it because if I don’t and it’s true, I’m not doing the good that I should, and if I do and it’s not, then it doesn’t matter because there is no goodness or truth anyway.”
3. Yes He would (and did) - if the wager was all there was that would be a problem. But not all people recognize these other ways (valid though they are) and Pascal’s wager suggests that even such a person should follow God, even if all he has in mind is self interest.

I don’t think it’s the most noble reason to believe in God, but I think we would err if we dismissed it entirely just because we see better reasons - especially since some people do not accept those reasons. I highly recommend Peter Kreeft’s treatment of the issue found here: peterkreeft.com/topics/pascals-wager.htm.

 

[Mumbles140]

I don’t think it can (nor should it) be used to convince someone of God’s existence. However, I think it is a useful tool when deflecting attacks from atheists. If they don’t believe in a higher being, that is their own choice, but you practicing your faith doesn’t negatively affect them, and if no being exists, does no harm to you. Other than a means of defense, though, it doesn’t really have any persuasive or argumentative qualities.

 

[tafan]

I think the idea has been sufficiently dismissed on this forum recently.

1. It proves nothing.
2. You have to question the sincerity and commitment of somebody just playing the odds.
3. If God exists you would think he’d find a way to help people find a strong faith without placing bets.

I beg to differ, especially with least with points 2 and 3.

Pascal’s wager is a means to start approaching God. Many people followed Pascal’s wager at some point on their path to holiness without even realizing it. Pascal wager is the same as saying “what I am doing now is certainly not working, what do I have to loose? I will give Christianity a try.”. And they do, and the slowly realize that it works and they slowly come to believe. I have no reason to doubt the sincerity or commitment of anyone simply because they started out by playing the odds, when the evidence strongly suggest the odds were in their favor.

Do you really think most people come to believe in a momentary flash of enlightenment? No, it takes time. It takes effort. That is what Pascal says, make the effort, because you are giving up nothing in doing so and you have a lot to gain.

I often wonder if people even take the time to read the wager. It represents the most likely start down the path of conversion for almost everyone.

 

[tafan]

1. It proves that betting on God not existing isn’t a good plan.
2. Pascal’s wager also works if you replace the self interest motivation with a desire to do what is best or similar, self interest is just the lowest common denominator sort of thing (so that even for the person who only cares about himself, disbelieving in God is not a good plan). In such a case it then becomes “if anything is good and true, it must be this. Therefore, I should follow it because if I don’t and it’s true, I’m not doing the good that I should, and if I do and it’s not, then it doesn’t matter because there is no goodness or truth anyway.”
3. Yes He would (and did) - if the wager was all there was that would be a problem. But not all people recognize these other ways (valid though they are) and Pascal’s wager suggests that even such a person should follow God, even if all he has in mind is self interest.

I don’t think it’s the most noble reason to believe in God, but I think we would err if we dismissed it entirely just because we see better reasons - especially since some people do not accept those reasons. I highly recommend Peter Kreeft’s treatment of the issue found here: peterkreeft.com/topics/pascals-wager.htm.

Thank you for this link, it is very good. For those who do not want to read it, I will extract one key paragraph:

Pascal’s Wager claims to be that third ladder. Pascal well knew that it was a low ladder. **If you believe in God only as a bet, that is certainly not a deep, mature, or adequate faith. But it is something, it is a start, it is enough to dam the tide of atheism. **The Wager appeals not to a high ideal, like faith, hope, love, or proof, but to a low one: the instinct for self-preservation, the desire to be happy and not unhappy. But on that low natural level, it has tremendous force. Thus Pascal prefaces his argument with the words, “Let us now speak according to our natural lights.”

Boldness added by me, it is the key point of the whole wager, IMO.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

I agree that Pascal’s wager does not prove the existence of God. What it does prove is that the atheist is a fool not to believe for the sake of his own self interest. After all, so far as the fate of his own soul is concerned, that is certainly self interest. Assenting to the wager certainly was not meant by Pascal to be the end point of spiritual evolution. But if we abegin by acting as if there is a God, we soon come to believe, based on our experience of God, that God truly does exist.

Some people will tell you that wisdom is a vain pursuit because it really doesn’t exist since truth is relative and does not even exist. You might agree and become a regular fool for doing so. Or you might begin your life by acting as if wisdom does exist. The more you act that way, the more you come to realize that wisdom truly does exist and that it is the fool in his heart who says it doesn’t.

“Fools say in their hearts, ‘There is no God.’” Psalms 14:1

 

[LibralAteoJesus]

It’s not valid at all:
1- God isn’t a bet, you cannot fake belief or disbelief to a super powerful being. Belief is an inner conviction not a game play.

2- What belief and God should we pick out of the many? Aren’t theists afraid of not picking a different and another God who may possibly exist?

3- Do you truly believe that if a God exists, he would care about you praising him all the time? And if you don’t because you are not convinced, he will torture you for your lack of conviction in his existence? are you ready to worship such a god?

If I died and arrived to Heaven and God asked me why I didnt believe on Earth, I’d quote Bertrand Russell: “Not enough evidence, sir, not enough evidence.”

 

[dshix]

It’s not valid at all:
1- God isn’t a bet, you cannot fake belief or disbelief to a super powerful being. Belief is an inner conviction not a game play.

2- What belief and God should we pick out of the many? Aren’t theists afraid of not picking a different and another God who may possibly exist?

3- Do you truly believe that if a God exists, he would care about you praising him all the time? And if you don’t because you are not convinced, he will torture you for your lack of conviction in his existence? are you ready to worship such a god?

If I died and arrived to Heaven and God asked me why I didnt believe on Earth, I’d quote Bertrand Russell: “Not enough evidence, sir, not enough evidence.”

You completely missed the point of the wager. How many times do we have to say that it is not meant to be used as a proof for the existence of God?!

 

[LibralAteoJesus]

You completely missed the point of the wager. How many times do we have to say that it is not meant to be used as a proof for the existence of God?!

Where did you see me presenting it as an argument of proof for any God’s existence?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Libral
**
If I died and arrived to Heaven and God asked me why I didnt believe on Earth, I’d quote Bertrand Russell: “Not enough evidence, sir, not enough evidence.”**

The Judge in that case would be God, not the defendant.

 

[jmjconder]

I beg to differ, especially with least with points 2 and 3.

Pascal’s wager is a means to start approaching God. Many people followed Pascal’s wager at some point on their path to holiness without even realizing it. Pascal wager is the same as saying “what I am doing now is certainly not working, what do I have to loose? I will give Christianity a try.”. And they do, and the slowly realize that it works and they slowly come to believe. I have no reason to doubt the sincerity or commitment of anyone simply because they started out by playing the odds, when the evidence strongly suggest the odds were in their favor.

Do you really think most people come to believe in a momentary flash of enlightenment? No, it takes time. It takes effort. That is what Pascal says, make the effort, because you are giving up nothing in doing so and you have a lot to gain.

I often wonder if people even take the time to read the wager. It represents the most likely start down the path of conversion for almost everyone.

I agree with you. Thank you for your post.

 

[LibralAteoJesus]

Libral
**
If I died and arrived to Heaven and God asked me why I didnt believe on Earth, I’d quote Bertrand Russell: “Not enough evidence, sir, not enough evidence.”**

The Judge in that case would be God, not the defendant.

Well then, I will appeal his decision to a higher God

 

[Peter_Plato]

It’s not valid at all:
1- God isn’t a bet, you cannot fake belief or disbelief to a super powerful being. Belief is an inner conviction not a game play.

I think you are missing the point and intention behind Pascal’s Wager.

He is addressing the “wager” to someone who is in a particular frame of mind. Someone who is uncertain about belief but wonders whether there is any reason at all to act from the proposition that God does exist even though the person does not see a compelling reason to believe but also no compelling reason not to. Pascal, to my memory, does qualify with something like “if for no other reason.”

I don’t think Pascal is asking anyone to “fake” belief, what he means is act truthfully but for whatever motive you can muster. If you can’t, for whatever reason, do good for goodness’ sake, then, he suggests, do it, minimally, so you don’t lose everlasting life.

Another way to look at the Wager is not in terms of belief in God but to determine whether one will choose to be and do good as a kind of fundamental option. The question, “Should I be good?” - for someone who is in a particular state of amoral neutrality (corresponding to a state of spiritual neutrality that the Wager traditionally presupposes), precisely because the person cannot muster any other good reason to be good - Pascal suggests can be answered by a kind of “last resort” consideration. Ultimately, for such a person, choosing to be good should be subjected - as a last resort - to Pascal’s dilemma in order to stop the person from making the worst decision in their life precisely because they have nothing to lose in the long run and everything to gain by choosing “good” or God.

Remember that Pascal was a mathematician who specialized in probability calculus and I think pretty much “fathered” it. He also had dealings with friends who had gambling problems so he attempted to provide rational motives for changing one’s mindset that were strong enough to overcome addictions, esp. gambling - akin to being in a sinful state separated from God and in need of a strong enough impulsion to overcome Godlessness precisely because you are Godless.

Of course, someone in a state of grace would not need this kind of motive, but someone in a state of sin or addiction might.

2- What belief and God should we pick out of the many? Aren’t theists afraid of not picking a different and another God who may possibly exist?

I don’t think this matters if the Wager is construed as a moral question or a question about truth itself. If believing in God is viewed as an aspect of being moral and being truthful, then it is to pick the most moral and most truthful view of God in all sincerity which would be only one option. The God that truth, beauty and goodness leads to. That is the one you believe in.

3- Do you truly believe that if a God exists, he would care about you praising him all the time? And if you don’t because you are not convinced, he will torture you for your lack of conviction in his existence? are you ready to worship such a god?

This is one view of what “worship” is all about, but, I suggest, simply a wrongheaded one. We worship God, not because it makes a difference to him, but rather that it changes our outlook to one of appreciation for what we have and are. It is giving honour where honour is due because that is what justice demands of us. It is not a question of humiliating yourself before God, but of properly revering truth, goodness and beauty. We worship Truth because it is the Truth, Goodness because it is Goodness and Beauty because it is Beauty and there is nothing greater than fullness of Being - Goodness itself, who is owed all our allegiance.

IIf I died and arrived to Heaven and God asked me why I didnt believe on Earth, I’d quote Bertrand Russell: “Not enough evidence, sir, not enough evidence.”

And you might be asked to what depths you searched for the “evidence” and what criteria you set (fairly or not) as to what you counted as evidence. In other words, were you open to the evidence God provided or did you expect him to act simply at your behest? Were you willing to change to find him or did you expect God to make all the concessions that you demanded? Were you actually looking for God, as he is in himself, or simply sought an illusion that you wanted God to live up to?

By the way these are rhetorical questions. I don’t want you to answer them for me, but rather, ask ourself whether when God asks you concerning your “demands” for evidence whether your demands were fair and open.

 

[jmjconder]

I lived 1 month in hell and one month in heaven. Pascal’s Wager is not a gamble.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Libral

Go ahead, bet on Nogod. See what that gets you at the end … just what you believed in.

 

[wanstronian]

I don’t think it can (nor should it) be used to convince someone of God’s existence. However, I think it is a useful tool when deflecting attacks from atheists. If they don’t believe in a higher being, that is their own choice, but you practicing your faith doesn’t negatively affect them, and if no being exists, does no harm to you. Other than a means of defense, though, it doesn’t really have any persuasive or argumentative qualities.

It’s ironic that you use the words “attacks from atheists” when you are implicity attacking them with your own comments!

The truth is, most atheists don’t give a hoot what you believe. What we decry is your insistence that the rest of us live by your rules. The idea that we “attack” you merely for holding a certain set of beliefs belies a persecution complex that is unjustified.

I don’t believe Pascal was dumb enough to believe that the “wager” was a credible reason to believe in a god. It’s quite clearly a philosophical trinket, as has been stated already. It certainly carries no weight in the “defence against atheists” arena, other than perhaps to provide some false notion of intellectual superiority.

 

[wanstronian]

What it does prove is that the atheist is a fool not to believe for the sake of his own self interest.

And what your comment proves is that anyone who thinks they can choose what to believe is a fool.

It also proves you are unable to understand the reason that atheists are atheists, despite it being well documented. It’s not because of some hedonistic agenda. It’s because the evidence presented is not nearly convincing enough to overcome the evidence against.

Being an atheist also frees us from having to selectively read the bible in order to continue to believe that theism is true and good. We can read the whole thing objectively, and understand that there are many, many contradictions; and many, many examples of your god behaving in an abhorrent way; and that the whole thing simply doesn’t stack up. We can see the damage that religion has done throughout history, and continues to do today; and we can thank providence that we were given the genes, or the upbringing - or whatever it is that gave us the ability to live without superstition.